President Donald Trump has made the increased enforcement of immigration laws on the books a priority of his administration.
That sounds like a pretty common sense initiative, and it also opens up a ton of questions as to why he should even have to point out that laws on the books are intended to be enforced.
Be that as it may, changes are afoot when it comes to immigration enforcement, and that’s led to howls from the Left.
The loudest cries are coming from the cities and states that are dominated by liberal leadership, and not much concern is given to the feelings of residents that may see things differently.
California certainly fits the bill in that regard, and state leadership has reportedly pulled another card from its sleeve in its ongoing battle against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Breitbart passes along the scoop on that.
California Labor Commissioner Julie Su has ordered state employees to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from entering the department’s offices without a warrant.
According to the Sacramento Bee, Su issued the directive last month, ostensibly to protect illegal aliens reporting employee abuse at the hands of employers.
Alright. So a state labor commissioner feels that it’s perfectly appropriate to interfere with federal authorities because she doesn’t agree with what they’re tasked with doing?
That makes a ton of sense.
One Democrat Assemblyman from San Francisco is pushing it one step, further the Beereports, proposing a law to limit ICE accesses to workplaces:
“The atmosphere of fear created by Trump and ICE’s expanded dragnet hurt all California workers,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, who sponsored the bill that would restrict immigration enforcement at workplaces. “We have to do everything we can to fight back, and it’s great to see our labor commissioner taking a stand against the small minority of unscrupulous employers who are illegally retaliating against their employees.”
Let’s pretend for a second that these state officials were employed in the private sector. Now let’s suppose they were issued a directive that interfered with their personal beliefs.
In response, the employees decide to completely disregard the directive – and even go out of their way to prevent the goals of the directive from being realized.
Exactly how long do you think these employees would remain employed once their actions were uncovered?
They would be gone before the day was through. We can safely assume that’s not going to happen in a state that marches to its own drummer.
When employees feel emboldened enough to make their own decisions in regards to policy, that leads to serious problems for the organization as a whole.
The same thing applies here, but there doesn’t appear to be any grownups in charge that will put a stop to it.
It may take more decisive action from President Trump and Jeff Sessions, and they have just threatened to punish California for their actions.